Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Low level training

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Low level training

    Notification of Air Corps Low Level Training, Wicklow Mountains The Air Corps is required to conduct Operational Low Flying in order to deliver the State its aviation capabilities across the spectrum of operations. To this end, the Air Corps Flying Training School will conduct Low Flying Traini


    Air Corps low level PC9 training in wicklow mountains

  • #2
    Originally posted by DeV View Post
    https://flyinginireland.com/2017/09/...evel-training/

    Air Corps low level PC9 training in wicklow mountains
    This is why the Air Corp and other militaries have specialist aircraft like the PC-9, Texan II and Tucano in the training role. Light twins like the B200 King Air cannot do this as the RNZAF experiment revealed. A qualified military pilot has to master low level tactical navigation and manoeuvers at speed before they become squadron operational. This is the key difference between a military pilot and a civil aviation pilot.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Anzac View Post
      This is why the Air Corp and other militaries have specialist aircraft like the PC-9, Texan II and Tucano in the training role.
      training for what?

      Originally posted by Anzac View Post
      This is the key difference between a military pilot and a civil aviation pilot.
      i fear you have somewhat failed to grasp what the AC does(n't do).

      it has more trainers than operational fixed wing airframes, and it has a frankly massive training pipeline to provide a tiny number of aircrew, who then leave because not only are they paid peanuts, they are bored out of their minds because the budget has been spunked on a wild inflated training capacity leaving nothing left for operational flying.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ropebag View Post
        training for what?
        The IAC follow a standard military pilot training curriculum. Their experience was informative in the RNZAF rationalising their training on the single wings platform the Texan II.

        Originally posted by ropebag View Post
        i fear you have somewhat failed to grasp what the AC does(n't do).

        it has more trainers than operational fixed wing airframes, and it has a frankly massive training pipeline to provide a tiny number of aircrew, who then leave because not only are they paid peanuts, they are bored out of their minds because the budget has been spunked on a wild inflated training capacity leaving nothing left for operational flying.
        I fully grasp and understand what they do with respect to the training of military pilots.

        It is a completely separate issue the failure of the Irish government to adequately resource of follow on roles post wings course for Air Corp pilots.

        Comment


        • #5
          Unfortunately I don't have it with me, but the "Fouga Magister - An Irish Perspective" book described a low level route through the Wicklow Mountains. From memory, I think that route might have been longer than the one linked to above, but can't remember more about it than that. Great to see this area being developed and explored further by the Air Corps.

          Comment


          • #6
            The IAC don't follow a standard military curriculum because there's no such thing; every single air force does it's own thing and every single air force thinks it's curriculum is the best for it's own conditions. The Air Corps used the King Air for multi training because the Fougas were stood down because of wear on certain airframe bolts and because Aerospatiale didn't want to keep spares going for Fougas and the Air Corps had to buy spares from civilian operators in the USA. The King Air was a very good choice because it's a decent aircraft to fly and it's a perfect lead-in to the Casa. It also gave pilots experience in airways and instrument flight to a level that the Fouga didn't and couldn't. It might not be suitable for whizzing around at low level in Wicklow valleys but that never mattered to the Don anyway, as the pilots were going on to fly over the sea and not fly combat aircraft...or they would fly helicopters.....the AC used to follow the RAF's CFS syllabus to the point of having identical training books but it then mutated into a form which had Irish bits, legacy UK bits and French/Italian bits and the written syllabus, for quite a while, was a direct copy of a certain Irishman's text book, to such an extent that AC pilots used to get an automatic grant of an Irish CPL, because the AC and civvy exams were essentially identical. The only extra bit was gunnery and rockets, as per the SF 260 manual and the Fouga manual. It was only when pilots moved onto helicopters that they recieved a different angle on flying that had a military bent to it, ie, lifting troops or lifting a mortar or going onto do SAR in Alouettes and Dauphins...and SAR is no longer a military task.....these days, the heli training is probably the "warriest" of all the Air Corps flying function, as the demand for helicopters has been firmly pointed at the Army's needs. The flying syllabus is now a PC-9 evolution and the point at which pilots are streamed for multi engine or rotary has changed yet again.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
              The IAC don't follow a standard military curriculum because there's no such thing; every single air force does it's own thing and every single air force thinks it's curriculum is the best for it's own conditions. The Air Corps used the King Air for multi training because the Fougas were stood down because of wear on certain airframe bolts and because Aerospatiale didn't want to keep spares going for Fougas and the Air Corps had to buy spares from civilian operators in the USA. The King Air was a very good choice because it's a decent aircraft to fly and it's a perfect lead-in to the Casa. It also gave pilots experience in airways and instrument flight to a level that the Fouga didn't and couldn't. It might not be suitable for whizzing around at low level in Wicklow valleys but that never mattered to the Don anyway, as the pilots were going on to fly over the sea and not fly combat aircraft...or they would fly helicopters.....the AC used to follow the RAF's CFS syllabus to the point of having identical training books but it then mutated into a form which had Irish bits, legacy UK bits and French/Italian bits and the written syllabus, for quite a while, was a direct copy of a certain Irishman's text book, to such an extent that AC pilots used to get an automatic grant of an Irish CPL, because the AC and civvy exams were essentially identical. The only extra bit was gunnery and rockets, as per the SF 260 manual and the Fouga manual. It was only when pilots moved onto helicopters that they recieved a different angle on flying that had a military bent to it, ie, lifting troops or lifting a mortar or going onto do SAR in Alouettes and Dauphins...and SAR is no longer a military task.....these days, the heli training is probably the "warriest" of all the Air Corps flying function, as the demand for helicopters has been firmly pointed at the Army's needs. The flying syllabus is now a PC-9 evolution and the point at which pilots are streamed for multi engine or rotary has changed yet again.
              I accept that the IAC have modified the Central Flying School syllabus that is the foundation - my lot have as well. But you are still training pilots to a military standard with adaptations and proud to do so and are not doing this radically different to everyone else who are using modern single engine platforms from ab nitio to advanced wings course before streaming to rotary and ME specialties. What you have explained above is historically very similar to our own experience down under with respect to transitioning from CT-4's to Macchi's, the PPL/CPL equivalency.

              Comment

              Working...
              X